Tag: abortion

I recently read that on the day President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act into law, the sun let off an explosion unlike any recorded in history. Some prophetic-types even sent out pictures of the flaming corona saying it looked like a baby. Interpretations abounded.

I see something in those flames, too. I see dead people. More precisely, I see dead babies – and I feel responsible.

Back in 1993, I was the editor-in-chief for Life Advocate magazine. One of our reporters had secreted a copy of a medical paper by Martin Haskell which he presented at the annual meeting of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) in September of 1992. In it was described, in very clinical terms, Haskell’s newly-developed Dilation and Extraction or D&X abortion procedure – now popularly called “partial-birth abortion.”

It was a block-buster article. We were the only news organ that we were aware of with the information. We prepared the article, but during our staff meeting Andrew Burnett, our publisher, said he was concerned. He wondered if, by publishing the article about the gruesome-appearing type of abortion, anti-abortion work might be damaged because “The Movement” might refocus its efforts away from the millions of invisible babies being killed in the U.S. every year. He was worried that The Movement might be toward this small number of egregious and visible abortions. He wondered if people would forget about the cruelty of the ordinary suction aspiration abortions or even other late-term procedures which, in fact, are far more cruel than the D&X. He wondered if the pockets of “pro-life” people would be picked clean for a war against a single procedure, while the killers marched on slogging through the blood of the innocents.

Well, we eventually chose to run the story in the February 1993 issue of the Life Advocate. The dreaded results were not long in coming. National Right to Life (NRTL) contacted us and wanted to use our story and our four-panel artist’s rendering of the procedure – the one you have all, no doubt, seen.

Then it was off to the races. NRTL and its state affiliates, along with many other “pro-life” organizations, began hyping the story and telling their mailing lists that they (for a price, of course) could help stop this gruesome procedure – “partial-birth abortion,” they dubbed it.

Ah, yes! It was the fundraisers’ dream – for both sides of the war. The “pro-life” forces crafted utterly useless laws banning the procedure and pled for money to promote and defend in court these purposeless statutes. “We can save lives and curb this cruel practice,” they bleated. However, none of the laws would stop a single abortion because there were already several other procedures – some more truly cruel and torturous than D&X – available to be used by the child killers.

In addition, the shrill shriek of the pro-aborts was heard throughout the land. “This is just the beginning of losing our abortion rights,” they cried disingenuously while raking in the cash.

Both sides knew precisely what they were doing. “Pro-life” leaders knew that the ban wouldn’t stop any abortions. The opposition leaders knew that banning a single procedure would not end “abortion rights.” The money, though, was good for both.

Nor were the politicians adverse wallowing the pig sty. Even normally pro-abort office-holders could vote for the ban and gain a few “pro-life” votes – and possibly campaign support from pragmatic right-to-life organizations. The standard for “pro-life” organizations giving to candidates was not whether they opposed abortion itself, but whether they would vote for the D&X ban.

The whole scene went downhill fast. I originally tried to console myself that raising the “partial-birth abortion” issue would cause the public to have more discussion about their half-hearted support for child killing. I hoped that the pro-abort defense of D&X would shock the public mind and reveal the truly crass, bloody, inhuman “face of pro-choice America.” Instead, it eventually just made people more callused toward the barbaric killing. “Well, any kind of surgery looks gruesome,” they took to saying.

Of course, after ten years and millions spent by The Movement, Bush finally signed the ban. Whoopie-do! Now Bush gets to pretend that he is a “pro-life” hero. Naturally, the fight has to go on in the courts for years, so “Keep those cards and letters – and money – coming, folks, and don’t let the pro-aborts snatch our victory away!” (I predict the ban will lose in court.) The pro-aborts will raise millions for the same.

Ten years and everybody makes out like bandits. For another ten years everyone will continue to gain – everybody but the babies.

Nowadays I tend to imagine the millions, possibly tens of millions, of dollars raised by “our side” for this fruitless exercise. I imagine if that money had been used to hire professional sidewalk counselors to talk to abortion-bound mothers outside the clinics. I imagine mobile ultrasound vans outside clinics. I imagine some of that money going to the attorneys to defend the rights of the counselors and picketers at the clinics. I imagine if that money had been used to provide medical services for those who changed their minds. I imagine, over ten years, thousands of babies alive today, tens of thousands of babies alive today, who are not with us now. I weep for them.

Jesus told us to feed the hungry. He told us to feed the hungry that were right in front of our face – not start a movement that would eventually feed hungry people in the future. When we invest our time, energy, and money to save babies, it should be directed as much as possible at babies who are dying today, not those who may (or may not) be aborted in 2050. Yet, the D&X ban (aside from being ineffective) is precisely 180 degrees out from that principle. Over the last ten years, The Movement has spent untold millions to pass a law which pretends to save babies, while the human presence at the abortuaries has dropped to near zero in most of the nation.

My 1993 decision to run that article helped to dilute the activist, anti-abortion movement probably far more than the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law and all the lawsuits. The attention of the anti-abortion activist was successfully diverted from the clinic doors where killing was going on every day to funding a “winnable” piece of fluff legislation called the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.

I had a part in that, and I am sorry. Sure, I could assuage my conscience saying that someone else would have eventually published it and started this whole mess, but that is simply dishonest. I was the one who decided to go to print.

So, if you wonder why I still go out to the clinics, and the streets, and the churches with my big, graphic signs trying to convince women to stop killing their babies, it is because I see something.

I see dead babies.

Paul deParrie

Paul deParrie was the Editor-in-Chief of “Life Advocate” magazine for ten years. Life Advocate was sued out of business by the abortion industry. The magazine was a tool which kept pro-lifers informed and encouraged by the thoughts and actions of others, and was a great loss when it closed. Paul also wrote several books, including “The Rescuers” which detailed the lives of individuals involved in the Rescue Movement. You can visit Paul’s website at The Portland Porcupine.

Paul was the type of man you could talk with freely without having to feel like you have to walk on eggshells. He was a blessing to the body of Christ. He was a blessing to me personally. He will be greatly missed. — Pastor Matt Trewhella

In 1973, mass abortion became legal in the United States. This occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Roe v. Wade. However, most Americans are unaware that there has been a Federal Abortion Amendment on the books since 1868. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal amendment to allow abortion on demand has existed since the days of the Civil War. It is doubtful that anyone knew it at the time, but when the American people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment they passed a Federal Abortion Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Supreme Court this is a true statement. The so called ‘right to an abortion’ is based on the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment is one of three amendments known as the Civil War Amendments. The purpose of this article is to persuade the reader that the ‘right to an abortion’ cannot be found in the Constitution. Neither the framers of the Constitution in 1787 nor the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 ever intended to create a right to an abortion. I will argue that the whole body of law involving abortion is nothing more than a fabrication invented by the members of the Supreme Court. I will discuss why this is true and suggest some other areas in which the Court has been creative through the Fourteenth Amendment. Our discussion will begin with the legal basis for abortion in the United States and the link between judicial activism and the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, I will discuss the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and suggest that the Supreme Court’s argument for abortion is a hopeless contradiction.

THE LEGAL BASIS FOR ABORTION: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the legal basis for abortion. According to the Supreme Court, the constitutional right to an abortion exists because of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has a Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is the current Federal Abortion Amendment according to the High Court. For the benefit of those who do not know what the current Federal Abortion Amendment says, please allow me to quote it for you. It says: ” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Admittedly, the word ‘abortion’ does not appear in the clause. Indeed, the word ‘abortion’ does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. But according to the Supreme Court the word ‘abortion’ is in the Due Process Clause. In their opinion, the right to an abortion is in the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause. This is what Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in 1992. Note 1. Thus, we could substitute the word ‘abortion’ for the word “liberty” if we wanted to. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment is in a sense the current Federal Abortion Amendment. The first time the Supreme Court said that there was a federal right to an abortion was in 1973. This is the year the Supreme Court decided the Roe v. Wade case. However, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did not clearly state what the legal basis for abortion was. This did not occur until 19 years later in 1992. It is likely that the Supreme Court based Roe v. Wade on the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause but it is not clear. Note 2.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court has used the Fourteenth Amendment for other purposes besides making abortion legal. In 1962, the Fourteenth Amendment was converted into a ‘Federal School Prayer Amendment.’ In this instance, the Fourteenth Amendment was used to ban all vocal prayer during classroom time in the public schools. This occurred in the Engel v. Vitale case. In effect, the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause was interpreted to mean ‘school prayer’ or ‘prayer in the public schools.’ The Fourteenth Amendment was used again in the following year to remove the Bible as a text to teach moral values to public school students. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment gave the Supreme Court the ultimate power over the separation of church and state in America. However, this is not all it did. If the High Court is correct, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the highest judicial body in the United States was converted into a super ‘National School Board.’ According to the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment gave them the ultimate control over the nation’s public school curriculum. For example, in 1987, the National School Board ruled that only Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was a proper subject for the public school curriculum. Note 3. More recently, the drum beats from the Court have sounded again but this time in a new direction. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court converted the Fourteenth Amendment into a ‘Federal Sodomy Amendment.’ This occurred in the infamous Lawrence v. Texas case. Here the High Court felt compelled to protect two men engaging in homosexual sex. Unless something is done to stop them, it is likely that the Supreme Court will use the Fourteenth Amendment as a ‘Federal Gay Marriage Amendment.’ Right now the Court can use the Fourteenth Amendment to legalize gay marriage in the United States. All that is needed is for five members on the Supreme Court to agree that the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause includes the right of homosexuals to marry. It’s that simple.

It should be obvious that there is a strong link between judicial activism and the Fourteenth Amendment. When conservatives complain about judicial activism in the courts, in many cases they are really talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has become a ‘wild card’ at the courthouse. The Supreme Court can force any social policy on the American people simply by manipulating the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause. Activist judges can dictate a policy for the United States Government in a manner that neither the President nor the Congress of the United States could ever achieve. Indeed, when it comes to social issues, the U.S. Supreme Court has more power than the President, the Congress and all state and local governments combined. This is true because it is difficult to reverse the Court’s decisions. It is difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. As an institution, the U.S. Supreme Court has truly become America’s politburo. Given the above record of abuse by the Court, the fact that the ‘right to an abortion’ is based on the Fourteenth Amendment should alert the reader that the claim is probably bogus.

THE TRUE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

A person might be tempted to think that the Fourteenth Amendment is a bad amendment. This would be a mistake. The Fourteenth Amendment is a good amendment. The problem is not with the Fourteenth Amendment but with its abuse. Shortly after the Civil War, the United States passed three amendments to the Constitution known as the Civil War Amendments. The purpose of these amendments was to correct the injustice of slavery in America. The first of the Civil War Amendments was the Thirteenth Amendment. This was passed in 1865. The Thirteenth Amendment said that slavery was no longer legal in the United States. At last, the issue that almost destroyed the constitutional convention in Philadelphia was finally settled. The curse of slavery was ended in America. The Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870. The Fifteenth Amendment protected the right of African American men to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment reversed the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court said, among other things, that African Americans were not citizens of the United States. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment made all African Americans citizens of the United States and of the state in which they live. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus, an amendment that was intended to correct an injustice in America has been hijacked by activist judges to promote their personal opinions.

THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD “LIBERTY”

The Due Process Clause says: ” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” To the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause referred to personal bodily freedom. There is no historical evidence to suggest that they believed it referred to abortion, family law, or to prayer in the public schools. The purpose of the Due Process Clause was to make sure that everyone had a fair trail. The Due Process Clause answers this question: ‘When may the government punish a person?’ The answer is the government may deprive any person of life, liberty or property if it is done according to due process of law. Due Process of Law is another way of saying that there must be a ‘fair trial.’ To deprive a person of “life” refers to capital punishment. To deprive a person of “liberty” refers to incarceration. To deprive a person of “property” refers to monetary fines (traffic tickets) or seizures of property by the government. Thus, the Due Process Clause is largely concerned with criminal matters. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to insure that African Americans as well as everyone else would receive a fair trial during a criminal proceeding. It was not intended to become a ‘wild card’ at the courthouse.

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REVEALS A MASSIVE CONTRADICTION

There is a massive contradiction in the Supreme Court’s argument for abortion. The problem centers on the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. There are two Due Process Clauses in the U.S. Constitution. There is one in the Fifth Amendment and there is one in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment was the model for the one in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause says the same thing as the one in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says: “. . . nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [Words added]. It means that the Federal Government cannot deprive any person of their life, liberty or property unless there is a fair trail. The Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment originally applied only to the Federal Government. Therefore, after the Civil War, in order to require the state governments to be bound by the same standard, the Due Process Clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The problem is that the Supreme Court interprets the word “liberty” in two very different ways. The way the Supreme Court interprets the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment is very different from the way they interpret the word “liberty” in the Fifth Amendment. For example, to date, the Supreme Court has never said that there is a Fifth Amendment right to an abortion! Most Americans know that the purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to protect you and your rights during a criminal proceeding. How many times have we heard: ‘On the advice of my counsel, I plead the Fifth Amendment.’ Even Hollywood knows what the Fifth Amendment is for. And yet the Supreme Court continues to argue that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment refers to abortion even though such a claim for the Fifth Amendment would be absurd. If the word “liberty” in the Fifth Amendment cannot logically refer to abortion then why should it be any different for the Fourteenth Amendment? For more than 200 years, the word “liberty” in the Fifth Amendment has meant personal bodily freedom. Why should it mean something totally different in the Fourteenth Amendment? This is a good question. Interestingly, at one time, the Supreme Court said that the word “liberty” in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments should mean the same thing. Note 4.

The reality is the entire body of law for abortion is a sham, a judicial fraud. This is also true for issues involving school prayer and homosexuality. For example, no one has ever said that prayer in the public schools violates the Fifth Amendment. Not even the ACLU will claim that Bible reading violates the Fifth Amendment. And yet this is said about the Fourteenth Amendment all the time. The inconsistency here is obvious. The way the Court interprets the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment is a hopeless contradiction. There can be no question that the Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment for political purposes. The Fifth Amendment proves that the Supreme Court is engaging in judicial activism. It is time for this nonsense to stop. Abortion in America is a source of great pain and suffering for everyone. However, the horror of abortion becomes even more painful when the so called ‘right to an abortion’ is proven to be a complete fraud.

For a more in depth study of judicial activism and the Bill of Rights, read my booklet: The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights for Beginners. For more information visit: www.myfirstamendment.us

David W. New is an attorney and author in the Washington, D.C. area. He graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1989. In 2002, he graduated from The National Litigation Academy sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund. In January 2003, he received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from the Methodist Episcopal Church USA. David is the author of several publications supporting the original intent of the Constitution.

The Bible Regards Abortion as Murder

What the Bible says are the responsibilities of civil authorities in upholding justice is a point being missed by some people in the pro-life movement in particular and by the public in general. The Bible commands the civil authorities to administer justice “upon him that doeth evil” (Rom.13:4).

If Christians do not report very clearly about what the Bible says is sin, then the people will never know how to repent. “For by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom.3:20).

The Bible has always regarded abortion – killing the child in the womb as murder, a crime punishable by the death penalty. The grounds for this judgment are “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex.20:13); Child Sacrifice, “he shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:1-5); and Exodus 21:22-23, where an example of abortion is found:

“If men strive, and hurt a women with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Ex.21:22-23).

In Exodus 21: 22-23, the Bible sets forth a minimal case with larger implications for justice to be served by the civil authorities:

(1.) “If men strive… .” The plural “men” is employed for the purpose of speaking indefinitely, because there might possibly be more than one person involved in causing injury.

(2.) “So that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow… .” An example of a premature birth. Even if no injury results to either mother or child, the man who causes the “premature birth” is liable to be fined and, in fact, must be fined. The Bible strongly protects the pregnant mother and her child, so that every pregnant mother has a strong hedge of legal protection around her.

(3.) “And if mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life… .” An example of accidental abortion. If the penalty for an “accidental abortion” is so severe, it’s obvious that a deliberately induced abortion is strongly forbidden. It is not necessary to have a separate ban on any form of deliberate abortion since the maximum penalty is served by this statute. If man through his own reckless actions, unintentionally hurts a pregnant mother and causes her to abort a child, he must suffer the death penalty. How much more so for any person who intentionally induces an abortion?

(4.) “if any mischief follow… give life for life.” The Bible strongly protects human life from the moment of conception. With the phrase “if any mischief follow,” the child has equal protection under the law from the moment of conception “life for life.”

God does not make exceptions that tolerate injury to any pregnant mother, or any child in the womb. In fact CURSES “come upon” and “overtake” nations that refuse to administer justice (Deut. 28:15).

If God does not tolerate exceptions to the administration of justice concerning murder by abortion, then neither should His people.

Error qui non resistitur approbatur: “An error which is not resisted or opposed is approved.”

By Jim Rudd First published in August 1997

In an atmosphere of sensationalism and exploitation, the partial-birth abortion issue has attracted a proliferation of spiritual mystics, radio talk show gurus, and TV soothsayers. Some with a political bent try to expand their donor list. Others, with a more commercial emphasis offer some kind of trinket, and then, armed with an 800 number, try to take your credit card number.

Their modus operandi is basically the same: They describe in detail the partial-birth abortion procedure visualizing the trauma the baby experiences in death. After tugging the heart strings of their Christian audiences, they make their sales pitch. They tell us the partial-birth abortion legislation is “pro-life,” and if we support their schemes or if we buy their stuff, it will all somehow “save lives.”

Behind all this disinformation, we find a group of Non-Evangelizing Para-Church Organizations (NEPCOs). You know, the type of organization that’s always talking about the government’s support of sin but they never seem to mention the “R” word — Repent. Classic examples would be National Right to Life, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, and Family Research Council. They talk about sin, they raise money off sin, but they do not require that the sinner repent. Much like the Parasites of ancient Greece — priests who made a living off the sins of the people by gathering corn allotted for sacrifice to idols.

For years pro-lifers have watched how NEPCOs feed off the sin of abortion: When an abortion issue arises (e.g., government funding of abortion aid overseas or fetal tissue research), they launch a nationwide fund-raising appeal that feeds off the developing issue. After the issue plays out, they resume waiting for the next abortion issue to arise. The solicitation of Christian funds from one emotionally-charged issue after another has led to the type of cheap exploitation we see in Christian circles today — but don’t expect it to go away any time soon. As long as the NEPCOs do not confront the abortion people with the evidence of their sin and call them to repent through Jesus Christ, they’ve got job security.

Up until now, all of these build-your-donor-list and get-rich-quick schemes have drawn hoots of disgust from many pro-lifers, who show their disdain by having nothing to do with the NEPCOs. Meanwhile, most of the Church in America is under the false impression that the partial-birth abortion legislation is “pro-life.”

There is a rule of law which says, “An error which is not resisted or opposed is approved.” I believe the reason why most of the Church is under this “false impression,” is that those of us who are doing the work of pro-life evangelism, are not disputing loudly enough the claims made by the NEPCOs.

Concerning the claim that the partial-birth abortion ban is “pro-life,” a basic examination of the law will reveal the truth. “For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light.” Proverbs 6:23 The commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” Notice how the law is pro-life. It protects the innocent by ordaining and establishing the act of murdering innocent persons as a crime. Murder is “the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of an innocent human being.”

No where in God’s precepts, statutes, or commandments does it suggest that it is all right to limit the use of one particular method of murder while murderers continue to use other means of killing, and the rights of the innocent victims are totally ignored. But, when the NEPCOs call the partial-birth abortion legislation “pro-life,” that is exactly what they are suggesting — which is a perversion of the law.

Moreover, since the illegal Roe v. Wade decision, the central issue to be resolved by the United States Congress is the inalienable rights of personhood. By discarding the central issue of personhood, the partial-birth abortion legislation, is no more pro-life than Roe v. Wade itself.

Roe v. Wade says, “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in ‘potential’ life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. . . . If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe [prohibit] abortion during that period . . .”

Notice where Roe says that the state can “[prohibit] abortion” after viability, which means the State “may go so far as to” make all late term abortions illegal. But the Partial-birth abortion legislation attempts to ban the use of just one late term abortion procedure. Now, since Roe v. Wade is not pro-life, and partial-birth abortion legislation attempts to accomplish less than Roe proscribes, then what does that make partial-birth abortion legislation?

At best it is a criminal attempt by the State to codify the unlawful act of murder. It’s criminal because a state that supports Roe or attempts to codify a part of Roe, is committing the criminal act of murder and innocent blood is in its hands! This is because the law says, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Some NEPCOs have suggested that the partial-birth abortion legislation is pro-life because “it brings the horror of abortion to the forefront of the public conscience.” Many Christians support the legislation for this very reason. However, the pro-life movement will never obtain justice for the child in the womb as long as we replace the legitimacy of personhood with irrational sensationalism — no matter how well-meaning our intentions are.

We must understand this key point: To correct the “criminal negligence” of government, we must address the cause. The cause for government licensed abortion is that government refuses to recognize the personhood of the child in the womb. By discarding the central issue of personhood, the partial-birth abortion legislation, or any so-called “pro-life” legislation with this same deficiency, does nothing more than prolong indefinitely government licensed abortion.

If our true intention is to see this nation repent of government-licensed abortion, pro-lifers must demand that governing officials pass legislation that recognizes the inalienable rights of personhood from the moment of conception until natural death. If they refuse, then we must insist that they repent or resign from office. For until such legislation becomes law, our governing officials are criminals, which makes us a nation of criminals guilty of murder in the first degree.

Subsequently, in the process of passing such legislation, the public will have opportunity to examine all the many different procedures licensed by our government to chemically poison, pulverize into pulp, chop, burn, crush, and decapitate innocent babies by abortion — all at one time! Then, as a nation of people, we can begin to realize the magnitude of our sin. “For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3: 20

The Truth About Abortion By Chuck Baldwin The Covenant News ~ January 22, 2010

Today marks the 37th anniversary of the infamous US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide. The aftermath of this tragic ruling is the deaths of over 40 million (a very conservative number) innocent unborn babies. It is no hyperbole to say abortion is America’s holocaust. Think of it, every American citizen today, 37 years old or younger, has never known a country that respected and protected innocent human life in the womb. Put it another way: when Hitler’s Third Reich was at its zenith, the abortion rate was 40%. In 2003 (the last year that I checked), the abortion rate of the county in which I live was 39%. And I live in the heart of the so-called “Bible Belt.” In fact, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be in America is not in an automobile without wearing a seat belt, or in a commercial airliner with a potential terrorist on board. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be is in the womb of one’s mother.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson once headed America’s largest abortion clinic in New York City. He admitted superintending over the killing of 75,000 unborn babies. He later recanted his pro-abortion activity and wrote what may be the quintessential book defending an unborn child’s right to life, “Aborting America.” Dr. Nathanson said, “There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy.”

Dr. Mildred Jefferson was a surgeon at Boston University Medical Center, a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery with many honors and awards. She said, “Many people try to hide behind the confusion of not knowing what happens before a baby is born. But we do not have to be confused. We in medicine and science have a different name for every stage of the development of the baby, but it does not matter at all whether you know those names or not. When a young woman has not had much opportunity to go to school and she becomes pregnant, no one has to tell her that she is going to have a baby.

“I became a doctor in the tradition that is represented in the Bible of looking upon medicine as a high calling. I will not stand aside and have this great profession of mine, of the doctor, give up the designation of healer to become that of the social executioner. The Supreme Court Justices only had to hand down an order. Social workers only have to make arrangements, but it has been given to my profession to destroy the life of the innocent and the helpless.

“Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order. To that question, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ I answer ‘Yes.’ It is everyone’s responsibility to safeguard and preserve life. A child is a member of the human family and deserves care and concern.”

How many physicians, scientists, teachers, pastors, missionaries, statesmen, musicians, businessmen, and notable contributors to society have been murdered in the womb?

At this point, I can hear someone interrupting, “What about cases involving rape or incest?”

While these cases number less than 1% of pregnancies, consider this case history: a 12-year-old girl was raped and became pregnant. “Get an abortion,” you say? Congratulations. You just killed Ethel Waters.

And as Dr. Jefferson said, just where does the acceptance of abortion lead? If we listen to the former governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, elderly people who are terminally ill have a “duty to die and get out of the way.” (Source: New York Times)

And does anyone remember Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana?

A little baby was born April 9, 1982, with Down’s Syndrome in a Bloomington, Indiana, hospital. The parents refused to allow a doctor to correct a defect in the esophagus that prevented eating because the child was born with Down’s. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parents’ right to make this decision. Despite many couples on hand willing to adopt the child, adoption offers that came in from all over America, and an appeal pursued to the U.S. Supreme Court, Baby Doe died of starvation on April 15, 1982.

Add to this blatant disrespect for human life the potential for mandated government-run national health care–complete with cost-related rationing–and one can only imagine how the value of human life will continue to decline in these United States. Plus, if you want to do some personal research that will really send chills up your spine, start investigating the fact that many scientists and researchers are seriously discussing genetic manipulation and genetic engineering. Good grief! Our own government and military are already culpable in grotesque medical experimentation with both civilian and military personnel.

Our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to using military personnel as human guinea pigs for medical, biological, and mental experimentation under various programs associated with the now-infamous title, MK-ULTRA. CIA officials say the programs have all been scrapped. Don’t you believe it.

In addition, consider the testimony of Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a physician specializing in internal medicine and cardiopulmonary diseases. She obtained her medical degree from the University of Oregon Medical School in Portland. She spent two years as a medical officer in the US Army.

Dr. Gerster told Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, “I was asked to become a member of the American College of Physicians many years ago. It’s any honorary society of internal medicine. I was very proud right up until the day that the society gave the James D. Bruce Award for Medical Research to Dr. Saul Krugman for the following experiment. Dr. Krugman had taken living hepatitis virus MS2 and injected this living virus into 25 retarded children in Willowbrook Home for Retarded in upstate New York. This was defended on the basis that they would probably get the hepatitis virus anyway.”

Consider, too, that, contrary to what most people assume, the vast majority of physicians graduating from medical school today no longer take a Hippocratic-type oath–an oath that binds physicians to the following: “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary [medical device] to cause an abortion.”

As Schaeffer and Koop pointed out in their book, “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” “The Declaration of Geneva (adopted in September 1948 by the General Assembly of the World Medical Organization and modeled closely on the Hippocratic Oath) became used as the graduation oath by more and more medical schools. It includes: ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.’ This concept of the preservation of human life has been the basis of the medical profession and society in general. It is significant that when the University of Pittsburgh changed from the Hippocratic Oath to the Declaration of Geneva in 1971, the students deleted ‘from the time of conception’ from the clause.”

Today, the ageless principles that had guided the medical profession throughout Western Civilization have been expunged from a majority of our physicians’ training and practice. And the Roe Supreme Court decision had much to do with this.

What is especially irritating about the whole abortion debate is the way the subject has been used as a political football by those on both the right and the left of the political aisle. While the national Democratic Party proudly touts itself as being “pro-choice,” (meaning, pro-murdering unborn babies), it has been the so-called “pro-life” Republican Party that is mostly to blame for legalized abortion being left as the law of the land for nearly 4 decades.

Think of it: the GOP has dominated US Supreme Court appointments for the 37 years since the Roe decision. In fact, the 1973 court that released the Roe decision was a Republican-appointed court by a 6-3 margin. The same GOP-dominated court also rendered the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision reaffirming Roe.

Consider still: the “pro-life” Republican Party controlled the entire federal government from the election of 2000 to the election of 2006: six long years of GOP domination of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. And in all that time not one single unborn baby’s life was saved. NOT ONE!

And, yet, each year, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) would introduce the Sanctity of Life bill. And each year, the bill would sit in the document room of the Capitol Building and gather dust. What would Rep. Paul’s bill do? Two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court. Had the “pro-life” Republican congress passed Dr. Paul’s bill, and the “pro-life” President, G. W. Bush, signed it into law, Roe v. Wade would have been effectively overturned.

So, why didn’t President Bush trumpet the bill? Where was the Republican leader in the Senate? Where was the Republican Speaker of the House? Where was Orrin Hatch? Where was John McCain? Where was Lindsey Graham? Where was Glenn Beck? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Where was Newt Gingrich? Where was Sean Hannity? Where was the National Right to Life Committee? Where were the tens of thousands of “pro-life” pastors and Christians?

And, yet, these same “pro-life” pastors, church members, and “conservatives” refused to support Congressman Paul for President in 2008, because he was not “conservative” enough. Actually, they opposed him because he opposed the war in Iraq, which means they would rather support a politician who promotes taking America into unconstitutional wars–but who will do nothing to overturn Roe and save the lives of unborn babies–than support a man who demands that the Constitution be followed, and actually had a constitutional plan to overturn Roe and end abortion-on-demand as a national “right.” No wonder Jesus noted that unbelievers often have it over believers in the brains department. (See Luke 16:8.)

I remind you that preserving life and liberty is the primary purpose of government (read the Declaration of Independence, for example). At this point, however, I think it is safe to conclude that to pretend there is any hope that Washington politicians (from either party) will do anything to overturn Roe is pure fantasy. At this point, it is up to State legislatures and governors to preserve life in their respective states. Several states are already beginning to do just that.

According to Fox News a few years back, 30 states were poised to pass laws outlawing abortion if and when the US Supreme Court ever reversed its Roe v. Wade decision. What they need to do is stop waiting for the US Supreme Court to reverse itself, and go ahead and stand on their own State authority and autonomy, and outlaw abortion in their states now, as legislators in South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia are already attempting to do.

Legalized abortion is a national holocaust; an affront to our national character; a contradiction of established principles subscribed to from the beginning of Western Civilization; an insult to the principles of our Declaration of Independence; a bane of our national spirit; and a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. That we have allowed it to continue for 37 years now stands as an indictment against this generation of Americans and bodes ominously for the well-being of our posterity.

On The Partial Birth Abortion Ruling By Chuck Baldwin The Covenant News ~ April 27, 2007

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban passed by Congress in 2003 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Pro-life conservatives around the country are enthusiastically hailing this ruling as a first step toward reversing the infamous 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which legalized abortion on demand.

For example, Rev. Frank Pavone voiced the support of Priests for Life saying, “We are grateful to all who worked so hard to pass this law and to educate the public about this unspeakably violent procedure.” Dr. Paul Schenck, Executive Director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill said, “In its opinion, the Court today has begun to right a terrible wrong.”

Troy Newman, leader of Operation Rescue, said the decision was “another in a string of recent victories for the pro-life movement.” He went on to say, “This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation.”

In a press release, the Christian Coalition of America said, “With today’s Supreme Court decision, it is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v Wade decision in 1973 will also be struck down by the court.”

I, too, am happy to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the illegality of certain Partial Birth Abortions, which are actually more correctly identified as infanticides. After all, since the Roe decision in 1973, over 40 million little innocent, unborn babies have been mercilessly, but legally, slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers. So, any ruling that has the result of limiting the legal killing of babies is a positive development.

However, I only wish I could be as enthusiastic about the Court’s PBA decision as the others quoted in this column, but I am not. I certainly do not believe this is the beginning of the end for abortion on demand in America. Actually, I fear that this decision serves only to further augment abortion on demand in the legal framework of America.

For one thing, the ruling clearly distinguishes between abortion and infanticide and concludes that Partial Birth Abortion actually qualified as infanticide, which was never legalized in the Roe decision. Of course, this is correct, but stop and think about it: In an attempt to accommodate the Roe decision, physicians, mothers, and the various states and communities in which these procedures took place were allowed to commit this type of infanticide (without encumbrance or prosecution) for over thirty years.

Thirty years of Republican domination of the Supreme Court. Thirty years of electing myriads of “pro-life” Republicans to the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Thirty years of promises. Thirty years of fundraising by scores of “pro-life” groups. And now, thirty years later, what we have is the U.S. Supreme Court limiting, not abortion, but infanticide.

For example, in responding to the euphoria of many pro-life groups’ claiming that the PBA decision has begun the legal process of overturning Roe, the Mobile Press-Register said, “The court has done no such thing; and in the majority opinion, justices pointed out that the ban doesn’t violate a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.” The Press-Register got it exactly right.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy (a faithful defender of abortion rights) said, “The Act allows, among other means, a commonly used and generally accepted method, so it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”

Did you get that? The justice writing the majority opinion said that the ruling “does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.”

At this point, it would be very helpful for everyone in the pro-life community, including those from groups mentioned above, to read Pastor Bob Enyart’s excellent analysis of this ruling.

Pastor Enyart points out that not only does the Partial Birth Abortion ban not stop any legal abortions, it does not even stop all Partial Birth Abortions. In his lengthy review of the Court’s ruling, he notes that even a Partial Birth Abortion may be performed as long as the baby has not been delivered past its navel.

You read it right. This ruling authorizes the abortionist to take the baby out of the mother’s womb up to the point where the baby’s navel is visible and still perform his dastardly work of killing the baby. And there is more.

The bill even authorizes the abortionist to kill the partially-delivered baby if the baby has been delivered past its navel, if the baby passed the “critical point by accident or inadvertence.” (p. 18 III, A)

Of course, this means that late-term abortions are still legal in the United States. Therefore, how can pro-life groups really believe this ruling is the precursor to Roe’s demise?

We know that Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have already expressed willingness to possibly overturn Roe. I believe Samuel Alito might also be willing to overturn Roe. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet unknown on this issue. As for Kennedy, forget it. He would never vote to overturn Roe.

Therefore, as the Court is currently configured, we are at least one vote, and maybe two, short of the five necessary to overturn Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court level.

However, as I have already pointed out in this column, Congress could have already overturned Roe anytime it wanted to. It could have exercised its authority found in Article III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution and removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. Consider, too, that both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by “pro-life” Republicans from 2001 through 2006, and nothing was done to end abortion on demand.

As it is, “pro-life” groups around the nation are hailing this latest Supreme Court ruling as the beginning of the end for abortion on demand. I only wish that were true. Instead, more than one million innocent unborn babies will continue to be murdered in their mothers’ wombs each year, more phony pro-life Republicans will use abortion as a sales pitch in an attempt to obtain the votes of social conservatives, and “pro-life” groups will continue sending out more fundraising letters.

At the end of the day, I wonder if we are really as concerned about ending abortion on demand as we are about raising money and promoting a political agenda?

Again and again, President G. W. Bush has betrayed the pro-life cause. The latest example is his push for $15 billion in U.S. tax dollars to be sent to Africa for A.I.D.S prevention.

According to British sources, “President George W. Bush dismissed a bid by conservative Christians to restrict his $15 billion foreign initiative to fight A.I.D.S. to only those programs that reject abortion and promote abstinence.” In other words, Bush proposes to send federal dollars to those organizations that promote abortion and promiscuity.

The New York Times concurred with the British report by saying, “Ignoring objections from his conservative base, President Bush is to make a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday in support of a $15 billion bill to fight A.I.D.S. internationally that will direct some money to groups that promote abortion.”

By choosing to fund pro-abortion groups, Bush is breaking his word to pro-lifers and is proving, once again, that he has no real convictions regarding the life issue.

Furthermore, Bush is a living, breathing example of the old adage, “The man who has a reputation of an early-riser can sleep ’till noon.” Bush enjoys the reputation of a pro-life, pro-family president and, therefore, is able to repeatedly endorse pro-abortion and pro-homosexual proposals, and few people even notice.

Bush has done every bit as much to promote the homosexual agenda as Bill Clinton did, maybe more. He has done absolutely nothing of substance to promote the life issue. Just the opposite. He has routinely compromised and capitulated the life issue to the point that it is now laughable when anyone calls this president “pro-life.”

Overall, the A.I.D.S. epidemic is behaviorally spread. It is mostly spread through promiscuous homosexual sex. Of course, it is also spread through promiscuous heterosexual sex and through germ-infected intravenous drug needles.

The vast percentage of A.I.D.S. victims are reaping the consequences of their own decadent lifestyles. Sadly, the fallout of this disease also impacts many children, hemophiliacs and others, who have become the innocent victims of other people’s sins. No amount of tax dollars will solve that problem. Only a repentant heart and changed lifestyle will cure the escalating spread of A.I.D.S. And, by the way, this remedy requires no federal tax dollars!

Perhaps one day conservative Christians will wake up to the fact that Mr. Bush seldom represents them and will decide to put their combined support and influence behind a principled conservative who will be faithful to the immutable laws upon which this nation was founded. Perhaps.

Abortion Malpractice Litigation

Life Dynamics Incorporated If you are a woman who has been injured by abortion, then call Life Dynamics. No matter how bad you may be feeling, you need to recognize that no abortionist should be allowed to get away with medical malpractice or sexual assault. Don’t allow your injury or assault to go unreported, because that only perpetuates the problem and subjects other women to similar victimization.

Legal Action for Women Educating the public of the dangers of abortion and extending the statute of limitations on abortion injuries.

Pro-Life America Abortion may be legal, but “consenting to an abortion” does not prevent you from suing for malpractice. If you’ve been injured, you have legal rights and you may be compensated through the courts.

Abortion Aftercare: Resources

Men and Abortion We may have more than 3.2 million walking wounded, men who are struggling with very serious emotional baggage. Further, this may only be the tip of the iceberg because there are an untold number who are suffering significantly, but to a lesser extent.

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer An international women’s organization whose purpose is to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

The HERS Foundation The HERS Foundation is an independent non-profit international women’s health education organization. It provides full, accurate information about hysterectomy, its adverse effects and alternative treatments.

Free Me To Live Since 1988, this course, originally developed for Crisis Pregnancy Centers as “Healing the Hurts of Abortion”, Free Me To Live™ today is used by prison ministries, churches, therapists, peer-counselors, women’s shelters, pastors, and crisis pregnancy centers.

After Abortion Information on the after effects of abortion and post-abortion healing, including research on post-abortion issues, resources, and testimonies

Former Women Of Choice Former Women Of Choice is comprised exclusively of women who have had one or more abortions.

Ramah International Steps to Healing: As a woman who made the choice to abort my first child in 1981, I understand the feelings millions of women experience. If you are one of us, you know that the memories can be painful and that true peace seems impossible to find. Months, or even years may go by without any thoughts of the abortion experience coming to mind. Then one day you find yourself wondering what your life would have been like had your baby lived.

H.E.A.R.T Helping & Educating in Abortion Related Trama. Whether you found us by accident or were sincerely looking for assistance, please know we are here to help.

Last Harvest Ministries, Inc. Online Christian Counselling. “You don’t have to hurt… Someone cares!” This confidential and safe, website will enable you to communicate your needs.

Reconciliation and Healing Incorporated Networks, researchers, and psychotheraputic professionals consults on the formation of post-abortion support services within secular and religious settings including Project Rachel.

The Elliot Institute Information on the aftereffects of abortion and post-abortion healing, including research on post-abortion issues, resources, and testimonies.

Women At Risk The lobbying and public relations arm of the post-abortion movement.

THE BLACKMUN WALL The Blackmun Wall is a listing of the women killed by legal abortions, along with information regarding the circumstances of their death. We named this project after Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision and launched America’s Holocaust.

January 07, 2012

Late-Term Abortion Doctor Arraigned for Murder

A New Jersey doctor accused of murder for performing late-term abortions in Maryland was arraigned in court and freed on $500,000 bail. Dr. Steven Chase Brigham, 55, who owns abortion clinics in multiple states, and a second doctor he employed, are charged with murder for allegedly starting late-term abortions in New Jersey and completing them in Maryland, which has looser restrictions about where abortions can be performed. The other doctor, Dr. Nicola Irene Riley, remains held without bail in Utah since her arrest December 28. Read more…Posted by Webmaster at January 7, 2012 01:24 AM

January 04, 2012

Abortion Doctors Could Be Extradited to Maryland

One of the two abortion doctors indicted in Elkton on murder charges under the state’s fetal homicide law may not fight extradition and could soon be brought from New Jersey to Maryland, according to the Cecil County State’s Attorney. Dr. Steven Chase Brigham, 55, of Voorhees, N.J., is being held on $3 million bail in Camden County and an arraignment hearing is scheduled. He is charged with five counts of first-degree murder and other charges in Maryland. Read more…Posted by Webmaster at January 4, 2012 12:01 AM

January 04, 2012

Abortion Pioneer Margaret Sanger Had Slew of Lovers

In “Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion,” historian Jean H. Baker chronicles the life of the driving force behind Planned Parenthood — an activist whose single-minded ferocity was decisive in making birth-control information and, ultimately, the pill itself available to U.S. women. According to Baker, Sanger was fantastically admirable and at the same time gratingly unlikable. Read more…Posted by Webmaster at January 4, 2012 12:03 AM

January 04, 2012

Planned Parenthood Got $487.4M Tax Money, Did 329,445 Abortions

According to its latest annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions. In addition, the number of adoption referrals made by the organization continued to decline. The latest annual report covers the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the PPFA’s fiscal year. Read more…Posted by Webmaster at January 4, 2012 12:04 AM

January 07, 2012

Man Arrested in Abortion Clinic Fire

Authorities say the man charged with setting fire to a Florida Panhandle abortion clinic long targeted by violence told investigators he was motivated by his hatred for abortion. In an affidavit released late Thursday, prosecutors said 41-year-old Bobby Joe Rogers told investigators that he made a fire bomb and threw it at the Pensacola clinic. Rogers said he was pushed to action after he saw a young woman enter the clinic for an abortion while he was standing outside the clinic with a group of protesters recently. Read more…Posted by Webmaster at January 7, 2012 01:22 AM

October 12, 2004

UK Health secretary John Reid has promised to investigate claims that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is helping women obtain abortions after the 24 week limit. The allegations have emerged following an investigation by the Sunday Telegraph, which claims that one of its reporters was referred by the service to a clinic in Spain that is prepared to carry out abortions after the legal limit. Posted by Editor at October 12, 2004 08:17 PM

November 05, 2004

South Australian Family First MP Andrew Evans is considering introducing a Bill to force women to look at an ultrasound image of their foetus before they undergo an abortion. Mr Evans says it should be an ethical requirement to show the image and he believes it would lead to more women deciding not to have their pregnancy terminated. “Where they’ve used it in America … when the woman sees that little baby they find it very hard to go ahead with an abortion,” he said. Posted by Editor at November 5, 2004 11:07 PM

August 24, 2004

I am confident that parents who, in ignorance, take their offspring to be aborted, would think again when they see their tiny child in such glorious detail, alive and beautiful and busy. Posted by Editor at August 24, 2004 01:12 PM

February 24, 2004

S.D. Abortion Ban Opposed by “Foes” of Abortion

A legislative proposal to virtually ban abortion in South Dakota ran into an unlikely obstacle over the weekend: the South Dakota Right to Life movement.

Some abortion foes said they feared that the frontal assault aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade could backfire and instead help to solidify the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, with South Dakota paying more than $1 million in legal costs to underwrite the setback.

The state House had passed the ban 54 to 14 this month, and a majority of the Senate had signed on as cosponsors. But a Senate committee Saturday eliminated most of the bill’s original language and substituted language that tightens the state’s informed-consent requirements for doctors who perform abortions.

The committee vote was 5 to 4, with abortion opponents on both sides.

The full Senate will take up the issue today, with backers of the ban vowing a fight to restore their original language.

Legislators opposed to further restrictions on abortion continued to attack the absence of an exception for rape and incest in the original bill. Ban advocates responded with testimony from a Minnesota woman who said that she was conceived when her mother, then 15, was raped. Her mother carried her to term and put her up for adoption.

“My life is not worth any less than yours just because of the way I was conceived,” she said.

The woman, who testified by telephone, was identified as Pam Stencil, but neither her age nor her address was provided. Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, who arranged for the woman’s testimony, said that she lives on a farm in southwestern Minnesota.

The original bill, written by Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, with help from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., would make it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion in South Dakota except to save the life of the mother.

The bill offered no exceptions for abortions to preserve the health of the mother or for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. McCaulley and other supporters said the ban needed to be kept as unencumbered as possible so it could fulfill its purpose: forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Social factors

The original bill declares that life begins at conception. It also says that three decades of abortion have harmed women — a finding that McCaulley said is meant to counter “social factors” that have pushed the court to reaffirm Roe v. Wade since 1973.

“The Supreme Court has never seen a case where it could consider the kind of evidence we have now concerning the origin of life and the horrible effects of abortion on women,” McCaulley said in a Star Tribune interview last week.

Opponents, led by Planned Parenthood of Minnesota and South Dakota, applauded elimination of the proposed ban. “South Dakotans do not support making felons out of doctors who provide abortions necessary to protect a woman’s health, or for victims of rape or incest,” said Kate Looby, state director for Planned Parenthood, whose Sioux Falls clinic accounts for almost all abortions performed in the state.

But the substituted changes to the state’s informed-consent policy “could create serious, and at times insurmountable, obstacles for women seeking safe and legal options,” Looby said. “Such policies have been roundly denounced by the American Medical Association and have the potential to create increased medical risks for women.”

Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, a longtime opponent of legal abortion, was among legislators who maneuvered Saturday to remove the ban and substitute the more incremental step of a tightened informed-consent requirement.

“We know this isn’t a winning issue in its original form,” Duenwald told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper after the committee acted.

February 23, 2004

NRLC: ‘KEEP ABORTION LEGAL’ in South Dakota

Right to Life and Planned Parenthood lobbied South Dakota state Senators over the weekend to change the language in a bill that would have criminalized abortion. Now, the bill keeps abortion legal.

(CovenantNews.com) The South Dakota legislator received national praise last week when the House passed bill HB 1191, becoming the first state legislative body to criminalize the murder of children by abortion — a catalyst for overturning Roe v. Wade.

To the shock and dismay of pro-life groups and churches across the nation, Right to Life joined with Planned Parenthood to openly oppose HB 1191 after the bill’s passage. Both nationally known abortion groups vigorously lobbied senate committee members to change the crime bill into an ‘Informed Consent’ regulation.

When we asked Jim Rudd, Editor of the Covenant News, about Right to Life’s hostile opposition to criminalizing abortion, he said, “Pro-life activists have watched National Right to Life groups undermine the legal and judicial process behind the scenes for thirty years. I think what makes this stab-in-the-back in South Dakota so unusual, is the fact that the state house actually passed a crime bill which forced Right to Life out in the open. You need to remember NRLC is in the abortion business, and they’re scurrying around right now to protect their funding base and jobs,” he said.

You mean Right to Life is in the abortion business? and if abortion is a crime then they will be out of business: “Exactly. If pro-life America makes abortion illegal Right to Life will have to find a new job. They’ve been in the abortion regulation business for thirty years. It’s the way they are organized. Making abortion illegal scares them because they don’t know how to do anything else. For example, just imagine how many people NRLC has in their company retirement plan. You make abortion illegal, how are they going to fund their old-age-pension plan,” he added.

What do you think pro-lifers should do: “I think pro-lifers across the nation should put NRLC out of business by criminalizing abortion in all fifty states. ‘Make Abortion Illegal’ needs to be out battle cry. It’s time we see this bloodshed outlawed, and put these groups out of business that give pro-life Christians a bad name,” he concluded.

HOUSE VOTES TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD, NATIONAL HEALTH-CARE LAW

The House on Friday approved measures that would block federal funding of Planned Parenthood and cut off funds for implementation of the national health-care law, even as it rejected a proposal by conservative Republicans that would have enacted a sweeping $22 billion cut across federal agencies. The votes on the hot-button measures, which were among nearly 130 amendments to a federal spending bill, came as leaders delayed a scheduled recess to complete their work on the measure after their third straight night of post-midnight debate.

GEORGIA FIRST STATE TO PASS PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT

Contact: Daniel Becker, Georgia Right to Life, 770-339-6880 LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga — Throughout the state yesterday, voters supported an amendment to the Georgia State Constitution that said the “right to life is vested in each human being from their earliest biological beginning until natural death” and that right should be protected by law. In all 46 counties where the amendment was presented, it passed overwhelmingly by an amazing 75 % ! Georgia is the first state in the nation where voters have said “Yes” to the Personhood question.

Georgia Files Personhood Amendment

At a press hearing today, Senator Barry Loudermilk, (R-52) a veteran pro-life leader, announced his filing of the Personhood Amendment, SR 153, in the Georgia Senate. This Resolution titled Paramount Right to Life; Without Regard to Age, Race, Sex, Health, Function or Condition of Dependency, states that the “right to life is vested in each human being from their earliest biological beginning until natural death” and that right should be protected by law.

PERSONHOOD BILLS INTRODUCED, GAINS TRACTION ACROSS U.S.

Personhood bills and amendments are gaining notice and approval across the United States, with a one such bill having passed the House in North Dakota and another the Iowa House subcommittee. Georgia, Montana, Texas, and Oklahoma have also introduced personhood legislation, reports Personhood USA.House Bill 1450, The Defense of Human Life Act, overwhelmingly passed the North Dakota House last week 68-25. The text defines “human being” as “an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development.”

CAL’S COMMENTS: ‘ALL OF MY SINS ARE FORGIVEN,” AND OTHER LIES

Here’s the top ten lies I was told recently

1.“All of my sins are forgiven.”
2.“I am a Christian.”
3.“God forgives. I’m okay.”
4.“I’m saved, and I go to church every Sunday.”
5.“The Bible says not to judge.”
6.“I’m praying for you, too.”
7.“So what? No sin is bigger than any other sin.”
8.“We’ll repent later.”
9.“I’m going to jail if you don’t shut up!”
10.“We’re fine. Our choice is between us and God.”
These statements were made to me while my family and I were evangelizing on the sidewalk in front of the last remaining surgical abortuary in Mississippi. They all came from mothers and fathers who were murdering their preborn children. Other lies were told: “It’s not a person yet.” “What I do doesn’t affect anybody else.”

Besides the lies they told, there were the lies they showed; Christian bumper stickers, cross jewelry, and rosaries worn around their necks.

PROPOSED SOUTH DAKOTA ABORTION LAW STIRS CONTROVERSY

South Dakota South Dakota will debate a proposed law on Tuesday that supporters say would protect pregnant women from attack and critics fear could legalize the killing of abortion providers in the state.The bill, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, was introduced in late January by Phil Jensen, a Republican legislator from Rapid City. If passed, it would provide protection to a family member who kills “in the lawful defense of … his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person” by defining the killing as a justifiable homicide. The bill is expected to come up for debate on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon and Jensen said he is expecting amendments from opponents. If passed, it would provide protection to a family member who kills “in the lawful defense of … his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person” by defining the killing as a justifiable homicide.

Statement of Faith By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort— for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.

I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.

Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.